DX9 / XP discussion

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I wonder if it is wise to keep the large majority of users waiting in order to satisfy the small minority who still uses DX9 ...

Dear Moderators,

Can we have a separate thread where people can ask why they are supporting DX9 and where we can continue to reply each time?

Thanks

[Force10]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

Dear Moderators,

Can we have a separate thread where people can ask why they are supporting DX9 and where we can continue to reply each time?

Thanks

We all get why they are doing DX9. The thing is, it was on the box a year ago and it hasn't been working for a year, so whats the big rush to do it now? Unless there is a lawsuit from some DX9 guy, can't they just back burner it until they fix important stuff? Something tells me that someone who can't afford a DX10 card, can't afford a lawyer to make an issue out of it either.

I would guess this DX9 "because it says so on the box" fiasco is just another stall tactic and gets everyone to focus their anger on "those pesky DX9 folks" instead of 1C.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by Force10

We all get why they are doing DX9. The thing is, it was on the box a year ago and it hasn't been working for a year, so whats the big rush to do it now? Unless there is a lawsuit from some DX9 guy, can't they just back burner it until they fix important stuff? Something tells me that someone who can't afford a DX10 card, can't afford a lawyer to make an issue out of it either.

I would guess this DX9 "because it says so on the box" fiasco is just another stall tactic and gets everyone to focus their anger on "those pesky DX9 folks" instead of 1C.

I would guess that the plan is to make this patch an official release one day, in order to make it official it probably has to fix the game for all supported platforms. DX9 was excluded from the initial Alpha and the small update to that, I suppose they decided that they needed to get DX9 in there now to get some testing data on it as well... that is just a guess of course.

[addman]

Also, people in the eastern European countries and Russia are in general not able to shell out roughly 4 months worth of salary for the latest high-end or even mid-end rig. They are the biggest market for the IL-2 series even though a lot of people on this board seems to think otherwise. Please, try to use your minds sometimes, it might help you to better understand things. Also, there is the "DX9 on the box" issue.

To be more clear: I do not say to stop the DX9 patch. It should come as it should have been there from the start.

What is irritating though is that they don't separate the two things.

They could issue the patch minus DX9 as soon as they are ready and continue to work on the DX9 issue for another patch before BoM.

This hardly costs more effort on their side but at least all others could play with a decent patch. It would hardly delay the DX9 availability for the few who still use DX9.

And sorry: I do not buy that Eastern Europeans tend to lag behind in computer hardware. My guess is that it is rather the other way round

[yakaddict]

Here is the irony. Name one, ONE dx9 specific graphics card that can properly run CoD? So were going to end up with support for something that no one is going to use. Unless there is a very minor crowd of people who seem to prefer running in dx9 mode on dx10/11 video cards for perhaps minor preformance improvements that should be taken care of in the upcoming patches anyway, who on earth will actually use dx9 ever again on this game? Not to say there is anything wrong with dx9, but more specifically again, there are no video cards that are dx9 specific that can smoothly run CoD, and there never will be.

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by addman

Also, people in the eastern European countries and Russia are in general not able to shell out roughly 4 months worth of salary for the latest high-end or even mid-end rig. They are the biggest market for the IL-2 series even though a lot of people on this board seems to think otherwise. Please, try to use your minds sometimes, it might help you to better understand things. Also, there is the "DX9 on the box" issue.

This is very true.... but then we are back to 1C being at fault in a very big way! If Russia is in such financial dire straits (I don't doubt that.. I know it is.) that they can't afford to splash cash on DX10/11 systems and Russia is the biggest fanbase.... then we are faced, yet again, with a development company who, at least appear, to not have a clue what they are doing and a majority (Albeit a different 'majority' from the Western DX10/11 one) who are getting...erm.. excreted upon from a great height. Not good. Not good at all.

I think they really should take the gamble and release a DX10/11 patch and work on the DX9 whilst us guys are flying around happy as larry.... it would, at the very least, remove some of the tension and, perhaps, save the dev team from a few strokes or aneurysms on the way. lol (Especially poor Blacksix! lol)

I can think of at least one software developer, who shall go unmentioned, who are praised for their series of strategic war games who have managed to get away with not really fixing two.. yes TWO.. of their titles whatsoever. I just pray they don't "fix" their latest one as that works just dandy. LOL

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by yakaddict

Unless there is a very minor crowd of people who seem to prefer running in dx9 mode on dx10/11 video cards for perhaps minor preformance improvements....

Yep! And the funny thing is... in a lot of games with DX11 and DX9 support, running it in DX11 will actually give much better performance all round so the benefits of running it in DX9 are, essentially, illusory.

I won't pretend I know, or even begin to understand, why that actually is.

[Force10]

Originally Posted by addman

Also, people in the eastern European countries and Russia are in general not able to shell out roughly 4 months worth of salary for the latest high-end or even mid-end rig. They are the biggest market for the IL-2 series even though a lot of people on this board seems to think otherwise. Please, try to use your minds sometimes, it might help you to better understand things. Also, there is the "DX9 on the box" issue.

Looks like someone has been drinking the 1C kool-aid! Umm.....no. First of all, you can get a card that supports DX10 for $30 dollars. These people that you think can't run it because of the video card DX9 deal, your saying that they have a dual core or quad core set up for the other requirements? If they do, then I think they can afford $30 for a DX10 card, if they can't afford that, then they have way bigger problems in life other than not being able to play COD. Some folks need to use their head before typing the first thing that pops in.

Technically, COD works in DX9 mode now. I tried it awhile ago when I was benchmarking and testing. It doesn't work well, but it will launch and play, so they have already made the box requirements. The box doesn't say "Optimized for DX9 with silky smooth performance" so they are in the clear. Don't believe the hype.

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by Force10

The box doesn't say "Optimized for DX9 with silky smooth performance" so they are in the clear. Don't believe the hype.

Good point. I remember screaming with rage when I bought a certain RTS with lots and lots of units (Give a clue: They foolishly released it for Xbox as well... two minutes into the game, your console overheats and your house burns down. LOL) a few years back.... Chugfest! Could I get any joy? Nope... why? Because the system specs just said I could run it. They didn't say they would run it with silky smooth performance. Finally got to play it about two years later. Was it worth it? Yep! Sadly the sequel sucked though.

The problem with your point is: Did the box say it would run with silky smooth performance in DX10?